[PEN-L:15012] FOLLOW UP ON SEATTLE, PROPOSAL FOR STRATEGY, 2.edit.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at SPAMinea.com.ar
Thu Dec 30 05:24:43 MST 1999



Alan B, before declaring himsefl with nothing further to say,
wrote (quoting Carrol Cox first):

:>. The primary tactic
:> of the NWO is *not* that of denying minorities the right
:> to their own state BUT THE VERY OPPOSITE -- the
:> encouragement of balkanization of the third world.
:
:This analysis, and its acceptance or rejection, seems to be at
the root of
:most of the most virulent disagreements on this list.

This is an, ahem, primitive way of stating things. Adjectives are
useful, and in order to help Alan reading them aloud, I would
modify Carrol's words by reinforcing the 'primary' that precedes
'tactic' with an 'as a general rule' after 'the third world'.
But, Alan, Carrol has resorted to the word 'primary', in the
first place.

It is a basic principle of foreign policy, which dates back
probablyto, say, a million years before Christ -I am conservative
this morning- , that no general recipes exist. This which works
here will not always work everywhere. That is what lays behind
the caveats.

But I am sure that even Alan would allow that the basic rule of
an empire, however, remains the one that the Romans had coined:
Divide and rule. On this we can even disregard the class contents
of any particulr empire provided we accept that 'an imperial
policiy is such a policy that allows the ruling classes of one
social formation to impose their law on other social formations
which they do not run and exploit directly'. The whole issue is
as to which is the best, preferred, most suitable mechanism to
perform this basic 'law'. It is circumstances which define this,
and it is on the assessment of the current period, that is on the
circumstances that preside the policies followed by imperialism,
that we may be disagreeing. Let me explain.

You can 'divide and rule' by balkanization, you can also 'divide
and rule' by enforcing different nationalities under the yoke of
a single one of them (which yoke cannot be sustained without
foreign support, get it Uncle Sam?), and there are as many
different methods as political situations. This has not changed
between 1950 and 2000. And this is a general truth so obvious
that I even feel a bit of shame for writing it down.

But what changes is the general environment on which imperialism
works, not to say a word of imperialism as such. In this sense,
the move of imperialism from (i) the decission to keep strong
states politically subject by means of, for example, military
rule to (ii) the decission to replace these military rulers with
formally democratic governments, and to (iii) finally supporting,
wherever it is possible, the fragmentation of those large -not
strong any more- states into myriad statelets looks quite
natural.

Because this evolution is the consequence of a more structural,
deeper move defined by the existence, fading away, and passing
away of the fSU.

Unimpeded by the 'menace' (more theoretical than actual, but
quite real anyway, at the very least in the symbolic world) of
the fSU, it seems to have become the general rule of foreign US
imperialism that the weaker the states we confront in the Third
World, the better.  This is simply a matter of being sensible. It
is a wonderful opportunity that imperialism is facing. We agree,
I suppose, that whatever faults these ladies and gentlemen may
display, they do have a sense of opportunity.

The whole schema may change within a few years, if the European
Union begins to pose a serious menace to the USA. In this case,
we may witness interesting moves towards some kind of
reunification of what has been fragmented (so that this part that
we carved out for ourselves does not fall in The Other's hand,
and so on).

Anyway, if we are only a little lucky, we shall have a tremendous
economic crisis around the corner, and after the dust and grief
set down we may be facing a new wave of anticolonial militancy.
The whole construction is gounded on shit. And, presumably, the
whole debate will fade away.

But for the time being, I would want Alan to say something,
because now there is a new element to discuss, namely the
correlation between the defeat in the fSU and the enhanced
impetus given to Balkanization policies by the West. A second
line of thought would be related to where can these policies be
established now, and where not. And I stop here, because gotta go
to the office.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at inea.com.ar
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Alan Bradley <alanb at elf.brisnet.org.au>
Para: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Fecha: Jueves, 30 de Diciembre de 1999 05:57
Asunto: Re: [PEN-L:15012] FOLLOW UP ON SEATTLE, PROPOSAL FOR
STRATEGY, 2.edit.


:> From: Carrol Cox
:> > The contradictions normally result from unnatural
:> > borderlines decided by imperialist powers without
:> > regard to the peoples.
:>
:> This will not do -- in part because the contradictions
involved
:> are too complex to be reduced to the few principles that can
:> be invoked in the kind of mass decentralized campaign in
:> question
:
:True.
:
: but even more importantly because the analysis is
:> seriously, even viciously, WRONGx:
:And now I'm left having come out with a 'fortune cookie'
comment, and
:nothing further to say.
:
:Alan Bradley
:alanb at elf.brisnet.org.au
:










More information about the Marxism mailing list